| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.005 | -0.514 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.437 | -0.126 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.020 | -0.566 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.280 | -0.415 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.770 | 0.594 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.001 | 0.284 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.275 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.220 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.865 | 0.027 |
Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science demonstrates an exceptionally strong scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.589 that indicates robust governance and a culture of responsible research. The institution's performance is characterized by a near-total absence of risk signals across key indicators, particularly in areas such as institutional self-citation, hyperprolific authorship, and retracted output, where it significantly outperforms national benchmarks. This operational excellence is mirrored in its thematic strengths, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings in core areas like Medicine, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, and Psychology. This low-risk, high-integrity environment directly supports the university's mission "to serve the population through... the discovery of knowledge dedicated to improving the wellness of its people." By ensuring its research is transparent, reliable, and externally validated, the institution guarantees that the knowledge it generates is a trustworthy public good, fully aligning its scientific practices with its commitment to social responsibility. The recommendation is to codify and celebrate these existing best practices to ensure their continuity as a cornerstone of the university's identity.
The institution's Z-score of -1.005 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.514. This result indicates a very low-risk profile that is consistent with, and even exceeds, the national standard for affiliation transparency. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university's exceptionally low rate signals a clear and unambiguous approach to institutional credit, effectively avoiding any perception of strategic "affiliation shopping." This absence of risk reinforces the institution's commitment to straightforward and honest representation of its collaborative footprint.
With a Z-score of -0.437, the institution maintains a negligible rate of retracted publications, performing better than the national average of -0.126. This strong performance suggests that its quality control mechanisms prior to publication are highly effective. Retractions can be complex, but such a low rate points away from systemic issues and toward a culture of integrity where methodological rigor is prioritized. This result underscores the reliability of the university's scientific record and the responsible supervision of its research activities.
The institution exhibits an exceptionally low rate of self-citation, with a Z-score of -1.020 compared to the country's -0.566. This demonstrates a profound integration with the global scientific community and a reliance on external validation. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this institution's profile shows no signs of scientific isolation or "echo chambers." The data strongly suggests that its academic influence is earned through broad recognition from external peers, rather than being inflated by internal citation dynamics.
The institution's Z-score for publications in discontinued journals is -0.280, a low value that nonetheless represents a slight divergence from the country's very low baseline of -0.415. This indicates a minimal but detectable signal of risk activity not widely seen at the national level. While sporadic presence in such journals can occur, this minor deviation suggests an opportunity to reinforce due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. Enhancing researcher awareness can help eliminate this small vulnerability and prevent any resources from being directed toward low-quality or predatory publishing practices.
The institution displays notable resilience by maintaining a low Z-score of -0.770 in a national context where hyper-authorship is a medium-level risk (country Z-score: 0.594). This suggests that internal control mechanisms are successfully mitigating a broader systemic trend. Outside of "Big Science" contexts, high rates can indicate author list inflation, but this university's performance points to a culture where authorship is likely tied to substantive contributions, effectively filtering out practices of honorary or political authorship and preserving individual accountability.
With a Z-score of -0.001, the institution shows a negligible gap between its overall impact and the impact of research it leads, contrasting sharply with the medium-level gap observed nationally (Z-score: 0.284). This demonstrates strong institutional resilience and sustainability. A wide gap can signal that prestige is dependent on external partners, but this result indicates that the university's excellence is driven by its own structural capacity and intellectual leadership, ensuring its scientific standing is both authentic and self-sufficient.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, far below the national average of -0.275. This near-complete absence of hyperprolific authors aligns with a healthy research environment where quality is not sacrificed for quantity. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may signal issues like coercive authorship. This institution's data, however, points to a well-balanced culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the pursuit of extreme productivity metrics.
The institution shows a total absence of risk signals related to publishing in its own journals, with a Z-score of -0.268 that is even lower than the country's very low average of -0.220. This operational silence indicates a firm commitment to independent, external peer review. By avoiding the potential conflicts of interest inherent in acting as both judge and party, the university ensures its scientific production is validated against global standards, thereby preventing academic endogamy and maximizing the credibility and visibility of its research.
The institution demonstrates a remarkable preventive isolation from national trends, with a very low Z-score of -0.865 in an environment where redundant output is a medium-level risk (country Z-score: 0.027). This indicates that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics common elsewhere. A high rate of bibliographic overlap often points to "salami slicing," where studies are fragmented to inflate publication counts. This institution's clean profile suggests a culture that values the communication of significant, coherent knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity.
